Dullness: The Path to Greatness?
Last week, I received a link to a recent op-ed piece from The New York Times by David Brooks. The article was entitled, "In Praise of Dullness". In it, Brooks summarizes the ongoing research in the field of organizational behavior, which seems to give witness to a counterintuitive truth: the best and most effective leaders aren't very charismatic or inspirational. In fact, the traits most evident in great corporate leaders are at the other end of the spectrum. The most successful CEO's (according to the research) are, "humble, diffident, relentless and a bit unidimensional. They are often not the most exciting people to be around." If you'd like to read the entire article, you can find it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=2
Since this article was shared with a list-serve group (of mostly clergy-types), I've been interested to read their responses to Brooks' comments. Almost unanimously, the respondents have found this ode to dullness reassuring. Finally, we can let ourselves off the hook for not being inspirational or charismatic leaders. At last, we can relax in the knowledge that to do our work relentlessly with a careful attention to the details is probably enough.
And yet...I'm not sure we can draw such a clear parallel between the corporate business world and the corporate church one. In the business world, the goals are clear -- minimize overhead and expenses; maximize productivity and profit. In the world of the parish, the goals are a bit fuzzier and lots more difficult to measure.
As I read the Gospel story, much can be said of Jesus and his followers, but "dull" wouldn't necessarily come to the top of my list of adjectives to describe them. I keep hoping that those of us still attempting to follow the Way of Jesus won't confuse faithfulness with dullness. If we do make that mistake, then we ought not be surprised when fewer and fewer people want to walk the path of discipleship with us.
Last week, I received a link to a recent op-ed piece from The New York Times by David Brooks. The article was entitled, "In Praise of Dullness". In it, Brooks summarizes the ongoing research in the field of organizational behavior, which seems to give witness to a counterintuitive truth: the best and most effective leaders aren't very charismatic or inspirational. In fact, the traits most evident in great corporate leaders are at the other end of the spectrum. The most successful CEO's (according to the research) are, "humble, diffident, relentless and a bit unidimensional. They are often not the most exciting people to be around." If you'd like to read the entire article, you can find it here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19brooks.html?_r=2
Since this article was shared with a list-serve group (of mostly clergy-types), I've been interested to read their responses to Brooks' comments. Almost unanimously, the respondents have found this ode to dullness reassuring. Finally, we can let ourselves off the hook for not being inspirational or charismatic leaders. At last, we can relax in the knowledge that to do our work relentlessly with a careful attention to the details is probably enough.
And yet...I'm not sure we can draw such a clear parallel between the corporate business world and the corporate church one. In the business world, the goals are clear -- minimize overhead and expenses; maximize productivity and profit. In the world of the parish, the goals are a bit fuzzier and lots more difficult to measure.
As I read the Gospel story, much can be said of Jesus and his followers, but "dull" wouldn't necessarily come to the top of my list of adjectives to describe them. I keep hoping that those of us still attempting to follow the Way of Jesus won't confuse faithfulness with dullness. If we do make that mistake, then we ought not be surprised when fewer and fewer people want to walk the path of discipleship with us.
posted by FrGaryB | 1:25 PM
2 Comments:
Funny, I saw that article and thought immediately of previous conversations we have had on the "cultivation of dryness" in contrast to the "cultivation of enthusiasms." (For any readers who may not be familiar, "enthusiasm" was a common term used in the 18th c. to slam on John Wesley and the like for their emotionalism. To be "strangely warmed" in Wesley's day was just not on.) And we see the same thing today in many evangelical circles where every service is expected (I would say contrived) to produce an intense emotional response.
Frankly, I would find this sort of thing exhausting. I would say that 95% of the time, my experience of worship (and of the Church in general) is more akin to the Gobi desert than to lovely streams of living water. But the wondrous thing about our tradition is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU EXPERIENCE. It's efficacious anyway.
The same thing goes for folks involved in the "Church business" (sic). Look at George Herbert. Many people only read his "nice" poetry, but he also wrote boatloads of verse full of frustration and bitterness about being stuck in his country parish in the middle of nowhere, apparently accomplishing nothing. But he persevered to the end regardless, and now we commemorate him in "The book soon to be formerly known as Lesser Feasts and Fasts."
So that's a long-winded way of saying, you never know.
PS: I am also reminded of a comment by the Danish director Lars von Trier. He did, at one time, a series on Danish TV, and introduced each episode himself. At the start of one, he said, "Are you getting tired of these episodes? Do they seem monotonous and depressing? Look at your own life. Then enjoy the comfort of the familiar..."
Post a Comment
<< Home